A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 03, 06:38 PM
Poop Dogg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

"fuller" wrote in message ...
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security
cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored
the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to
a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents.

The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2
million in damages.

The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by
putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston
Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14,
in various stages of undress.


The parents should have been more active when the school district
originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are,
the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be
installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition.
They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a
reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already
various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people
have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms
and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and
the school and district officials should face criminal
prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would
certainly be in order as well.



  #2  
Old July 3rd 03, 12:07 AM
Donna Metler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras


"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
"Poop Dogg" wrote in message

...
"fuller" wrote in message ...
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security
cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored
the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to
a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents.

The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2
million in damages.

The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by
putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston
Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14,
in various stages of undress.


The parents should have been more active when the school district
originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are,
the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be
installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition.
They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a
reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already
various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people
have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms
and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and
the school and district officials should face criminal
prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would
certainly be in order as well.


I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably
illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal
in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that
it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you
could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well
have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved,
but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to
get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about
it.


And often the cameras are placed because of vandalism, which locker rooms
and bathrooms are prone to. My school does have them outside the doors of
such rooms, but not inside, AFAIK, specificially so that if vandalism
occurs, there is a record of who might have been responsible, and it can be
narrowed from there.

I'm guessing this was stupidity on the part of whoever placed the
cameras-outside the bathroom, OK, Inside, dumb.

And I can't imagine why those records would be accessible via the internet.
Our tapes are archived for X number of months (I think 3), and never are
looked at unless there is some cause to do so. If there has been a problem
in a specific area (like someone messing up the bathrooms during lunch)
someone might watch that specific camera at that specific time to get
information, but otherwise, they're really not used.





  #3  
Old July 3rd 03, 02:29 AM
Poop Dogg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message ...
I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably
illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal
in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that
it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you
could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well
have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved,
but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to
get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about
it.


The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
collection. I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
be considered child pornography. At the very least Tenn. prosecutors
should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea
bargain favorable to the state.

  #4  
Old July 3rd 03, 04:59 AM
Gordon Burditt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
collection.


This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.

I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
be considered child pornography.


Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.

At the very least Tenn. prosecutors
should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea
bargain favorable to the state.


Gordon L. Burditt
  #5  
Old July 3rd 03, 07:07 AM
Joni Rathbun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras


On 3 Jul 2003, Gordon Burditt wrote:

The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
collection.


This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.

I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
be considered child pornography.


Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.


The SC knocked that one down a year ago:

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

"The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child
pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or
other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in
sex."

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16075




  #6  
Old July 3rd 03, 07:22 AM
Poop Dogg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.
...
Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.


I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years
that even photos of clothed children could be considered child
pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin
area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are
protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe.
This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons
of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged
in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn).

I still can't figure out what the pervs see in kiddie porn. I
occasionally stumble across an image posted to adult binaries
newsgroups and they are not the least bit stimulating. Less
sexually stimulating than looking at a goldfish, in my opinion.
These people are freaks and need to be locked up. I do, however,
realize there is a difference between child pornography and
images featuring under-18 adolescents who are otherwise sexually
mature. Nevertheless, the laws explicitly state that such
minors are jailbait, though someone shouldn't be blamed if they
inadvertently possess such an image believing the subject to be
over 18.


  #7  
Old July 3rd 03, 04:08 PM
Elizabeth Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

"Poop Dogg" wrote in message ...
"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.
...
Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.


I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years
that even photos of clothed children could be considered child
pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin
area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are
protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe.
This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons
of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged
in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn).


Actually, I don't think this was the worry. I thought this was
stupid too initially. What, we're going to prosecute people
for looking at fake pictures? What next, if we catch you
fantasizing about something illegal we'll lock you up? All those
people who like playing first-person-shooter games get
put away for mass murder?

However, while the case was being debated, I heard a law prof
talk about it on NPR and he brought up what I thought was a
good point. Apparently the problem is that if simulated images are
legal, anyone prosecuting a child porn case might be called upon to
*prove* the images aren't simulated by producing the child in
question. As simulated images get more and more realistic, failure
to prove that an image involves a real child might convince a jury
that there's reasonable doubt about a crime being committed,
allowing child pornographers to go free (since it'd be nearly
impossible to find the child a lot of the time).

This seemed less stupid to me. I don't know if it's actually
happened yet though.

Beth
  #9  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:48 PM
Dave C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras


There's a pretty high probability that the group which came in and

installed
the cameras (and probably selected the locations) works out of the central
district office and has never looked at a single feed from the cameras

since
testing to make sure they worked. Usually maintenance is controlled at the
district level, not the school, unless we're talking a one school

district,
in which case they probably hired someone.

I can't understand why there would be a need to have the record accessible
via the internet, though. Our security cameras store to tape, and are

reused
after a few months.


The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped
producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from
video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it
would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one, the
person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now video
cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar to
TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs
of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk
recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE are
networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor
video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or even
the Internet.

It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in
many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't
need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send
you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even the
Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local
computer.

On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders. If
they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would be
.. . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave


  #10  
Old July 3rd 03, 10:25 PM
Donna Metler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras


"Dave C." wrote in message
thlink.net...

There's a pretty high probability that the group which came in and

installed
the cameras (and probably selected the locations) works out of the

central
district office and has never looked at a single feed from the cameras

since
testing to make sure they worked. Usually maintenance is controlled at

the
district level, not the school, unless we're talking a one school

district,
in which case they probably hired someone.

I can't understand why there would be a need to have the record

accessible
via the internet, though. Our security cameras store to tape, and are

reused
after a few months.


The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped
producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from
video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it
would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one,

the
person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now

video
cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar

to
TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs
of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk
recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE

are
networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor
video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or

even
the Internet.

It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in
many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't
need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send
you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even

the
Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local
computer.

On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders.

If
they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would

be
. . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave

OK-that makes sense. My district has a habit of using antiquated equipment
until it falls apart. I do have to wonder why you'd be monitoring a school
remotely-I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the
cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless there was a
break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust until the date passes.
It's mostly the deterrent of seeing the cameras. And my district has an
intranet, so if something was being monitored off site, it would go through
the intranet, not the internet.

The only reason I could see having such a system in a school hooked to the
internet would be for parents to be able to monitor what is going on in the
classrooms, like some day care centers have-which might not be a bad idea,
come to think of it.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Virtual school seeks Iowa funding [email protected] General 4 June 29th 03 12:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.